This comment by Anonymous is one of several written in response to my blog which share the same underlying assumption: namely, that teenage girls and young women are more likely than older women to identify as lesbian or bisexual. Other comments below include terms such as BUG (Bisexual Until Graduation), reflecting the assumption that teenage girls and young women who identify as bisexual are just "going through a phase" and that most of those women will eventually settle down as heterosexual.

The scholarly research on this topic does not provide strong evidence in support of this assumption. On the contrary, the most careful, longitudinal studies - in which researchers keep track of the same women for many years - suggests just the opposite. For example, Professor Lisa Diamond followed a cohort of women for 10 years: she found that over those ten years, these women were more likely to ADOPT the bisexual label than they were to RELINQUISH that label. You will find the full citation for this study in Note 3, at the end of page 2 of my blog.

I wonder how many of you study genetics at any length. I'm certainly no scientist but has the possibility occurred to anyone that a gene mutation attracts women to women?

Consider: When an egg is fertilized, its sex is inherently female. If something goes wrong with the Y chromosome the embryo takes on characteristics of a female (http://www.genomicseducation.ca/informationArticles/genebasics/y_files.asp referencing Nussbaum RL et al. Thompson and Thompson Genetics in Medicine. 6th ed. 2004. Saunders.).

That would mean that in theory everyone in existence was at one time a female genetically leaving 0 males available. So it is possible that such a small change in her genes could have triggered the male gene to be attracted to females.

I don't think it's genetics at all. Historically, there have been way more incidences of male bisexuality and homosexuality than female bisexuality and homosexuality. In countries like Afghanistan, it's still common for this pattern to exist. Also, why are there more gay men than lesbian women if it's purely genetics? I think the reason there are so many more bisexual women now is because of the advent pornography on the internet. It's no coincidence that the timing of the popularization of the internet coincides exactly with the rise of female bisexuality in my opinion.

I hope that Anonymous will take a look at my second book, entitled Boys Adrift: the five factors driving the growing epidemic of unmotivated boys. If Anonymous would read my book, she or he would recognize that I am not making "hateful generalizations". A growing proportion of boys today do openly value pornography, or playing video games such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, as much or more than they value actual interaction with the girls they know. Teenage girls tell me about going to parties where most of the boys aren't interested in talking with the girls; instead the boys are huddled around a video game console playing COD:MW2. Such boys are, from a girl's perspective, losers. The boys are losers not because they are male but because of what they are DOING (playing video games) or not doing (showing any interest in the girls).

The analogy suggested by Anonymous is misleading. Racial prejudice is based on the color of a person's skin, not on the actual experienced behavior of the individual. But in the cases I am describing (both in this blog and in my books), girls are alienated from boys because of what the boys are DOING, not because the boys are male.

In most of the animal kingdom females only procreate with roughly 2% of all males in their herd (or pride, or flock, or gaggle, etc.). The most dominant males. The rest just take up space. They're losers. Female humans had to adapt away from this strategy however because the survival rate of our children was, unlike most animals, greatly dependent on male investment. Though we're not living in the pleistocene era on the plains of Africa currently, women still have that drive for male investment and commitment. However, there is another female drive to pass on the genes of the most dominant male, a winner. This is why (according to some studies) roughly 10-15% of all fathers on the planet are raising another man's child. Women want the genes AND the commitment. If they can't get both from the same guy, so be it.

The reason girls think most guys are losers is most of us are. All we have to offer is commitment unless we're part of that top 2%. Maybe these girls are unconsciously thinking "I'm young, I have time to find Prince Charming--why waste time on a potential pregnancy with a loser?" And if bi-sexuality is offered up as a socially acceptable alternative, then why not?

After all, women have much more to lose from an ill-timed pregnancy than do men.

I read the use of the word "losers" as both humorous and a narrative convention to emphasize the point of the article. It didn't seem negligent, but poignant.

I have seen studies that suggest that men CAN'T be bi, while women CAN be bi. Also, are you attracted to men that have dated other men before? No? then you've got yourself a reason.

Check out Bruce Bagemihl's book Biological Exuberance. It has about 300 examples in Mammals and Birds of alternate sexual behavior, mostly homosexual behavior. Also, consider the Bonobo.

I disagree with you benign assessment of "romance novels". They seem to encourage a perception that woman can "remain safe" waiting for the virtuous (sometimes) but compelling pirate or whatever character is in current vogue to overwhelm them -- providing them the ability to consent to sexuality without any personal "investment" in the decision itself. The thesis of these novels actually is part of a specific genre of "erotica" -- the term pornography is pejorative and over-used in my view -- non-consent/reluctance (romance novels falling at least in the "reluctance" segment of that genre).

As far as grooming issues stemming from pornography -- both young men and young women have grooming issues -- and preferences.

Commonly marketed visual hard-core pornography clearly does not enhance relationship effectiveness -- but it is disingenuous to endow the "romance novel" with benign benediction.

I see sexuality as becoming more accepted -- but I also see abdication of the arena of "popular communication of sexuality to teens" by increasingly unrealistic and irresponsible adults as being part of the reason that what is communicated often is so unsuitable.

If sexual awareness is part of teen growth, maybe someone should "bring to market" images (visual and written) that are edgy enough to be relevant to teens without the degradation and objectification that is associated with "pornography".

in my experience a lot of self-confident girls DO enjoy rougher sex.